UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[parochial boy]

No. You are wrong. The member nations did not hold votes on the Union as it exists today. They joined a common market that has since grown unchecked into a political union. EU elections see abysmal turnout and many of the major positions in the bureaucracy are unelected. To say that the people in the member nations "chose to join" this Union is frankly asinine and a complete misrepresentation of how the EU has expanded its power since its inception. And if the EU does become a United States of Europe (as it is slowly gravitating towards), I'd bet good money that the legitimate qualms of EU citizens will once again go ignored.

So reform the EU to make it more democratic, which is entirely possible, and is slowly happening - and fwiw, EU membership has solid majority support in evey member state. And after all, what is the nation state if not just another form of collectivism? I don't see why the nation-state level should be any more or less legitimate a supranational one.

I'm a little bit suprised that a libertarian would be so enthusiastic about "national sovereignty". After all, leaving the EU is something that has a pretty big impact on people's individual freedoms. The right to travel and work around the bloc; to participate in other member's "markets", be it through access to healthcare, buy property, access to buy goods and services and to bring them home; the ability of companies to trade without friction across the bloc... These are all much more concrete things that affect people much more directly, in a way that they notice, far more than an abstract concept like which particular institution holds what "sovereignty".

The US has been a far better ally to the UK than the EU ever has so UK will benefit from a trade deal with the US.

Also Europe adopting US style nationalism(not the Trump style, the pre Trump style more like)>>> the EU easily

So abandon being able to influence and participate in setting EU law, as the UK was regularly at the forefront of - eg in supporting expansion or rejecting the Financial Transactions Tax versus subjecting itself to a trade deal on terms dictated by the US and the US's standards.

That's a funny concept of sovereignty you have there.

[CumbrianLefty]

Remain's whole approach was awful and the current "you're racist, you're racist" approach done by many, which may be true, just has the effect of putting people's backs up.

The left in general needs to find a new approach.

The remain campaign was if anything more identified with centrism than leftism.

(indeed, that could be cited as a key reason why it failed)

[Blair]

The argument about 'unelected officals' is really no different to the fact that US cabinet members aren't elected; but are officials chosen by a President elected within a college, and then ratified by the legislative body.

[Blair]

Is the below really the calibre of discussion that we're having about the EU?

The EU became unpopular precisely because it tried to govern like it was a nation instead of a trade pact. All the rules and regulations it was implementing over the last 10 years and then expecting nations to follow those even when they violate their own rules and laws showed the utter hubris and failure of the EU.

Also, the EU is not some great institution which promoted free-market economics at all, it is far more socialist than the UK and the UK being out means it can implement far more neo-liberal reforms and make it self like the US than it could have under the EU.

Do you really think the EU only started EU wide regulations in the last 10 years?

Again I'm not surprised but this is showing rather a lot of ignorance about the EU. As Tony Judt said about the treaty of rome in 1957...

It is important not to overstate the importance of the Rome Treaty. It represented for the most part a declaration of future good intentions...Most of the text constituted a framework for instituting procedures designed to establish and enforce future regulations. The only truly significant innovation – the setting up under Article 177 of a European Court of Justice to which national courts would submit cases for final adjudication – would prove immensely important in later decades but passed largely unnoticed at the time.

It was painfully obvious from the 1960s that there would be a common set of regulations & a court arbitration system to deal with any disagreements of these rules & regulations.  

If you want to have a single currency & the freedom of movement of goods and services you're going to shock horror have a uniform set of regulations; something that virtually every single trade deal around the world already has- and that's just for the movement of goods.

Also I don't suppose you know that the socialist single market was actually created & championed by Margaret Thatcher; our EU membership didn't stop anti-trade union laws being introduced, nationalised assets being sold or austerity- because that's not the purpose of the EU.

When you have both the devout free marketeers claiming the EU is a socialist plot & rabid lexiteers claiming it's a capitalist club its pretty obvious it's something in the middle; a union of states that upholds a mildly social democratic set of rules around minimum labour, environmental and social standards.

[Omega21]

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Oh my God you're also one of these f**king people. Good grief. One minute you're posting well-researched effortposts and the next you're back with the bottom-of-the-barrel dumbass cold takes.

Westphalian sovereignty isn't controversial outside of far-left groups and the boards of multinational corporations. But politics makes strange bedfellows, I suppose.

The principle of Westphalian sovereignty (the very concept of which originated within an international agreement) can & has been tempered by international agreements, which in & of themselves help to comprise international law! The fact that the UK was able to voluntarily withdraw from the EU treaties is, in & of itself, proof that your argument over 'sovereignty' is, was, & always will be complete & utter nonsense.

Oh please, the EU is not just another international institution. Does NAFTA have a president? Can its courts override the US constitution? Where is the army of ASEAN?

The EU stopped being a representative institution when it rammed the Lisbon treaty through. Macron and Merkel are discussing an EU army. I'm glad the UK got out while it still could. The rest of the member nations need to start feeling the slow boil of the pot they're in, or they'll be forever trapped as vassal states to Germany and France.

We really do need a preemptive ban on Americans posting in the international boards. People who actually know their stuff like Brucejoel can subsequently be let back in, of course.

Does that include banning 51.4% of the British population as well?

Again, this isn't a violation of soveriegnty because sovereign states chose to join this instutituion, and can (foolishly) choose to leave. If a new treaty does away with Article 50 or just fully embraces a United States of europe, that doesn't violate national soverignity because sovereign nations choose to agree to it and legitimately cede their sovereignty to the European Union which itself becomes a sovereign state deriving its legitimacy from the will of the European people. By your logic, the USA has no sovereign democratic legitimacy because it was preceded by quasi-sovereign states governed by the Articles of Confederation.

No. You are wrong. The member nations did not hold votes on the Union as it exists today. They joined a common market that has since grown unchecked into a political union. EU elections see abysmal turnout and many of the major positions in the bureaucracy are unelected. To say that the people in the member nations "chose to join" this Union is frankly asinine and a complete misrepresentation of how the EU has expanded its power since its inception. And if the EU does become a United States of Europe (as it is slowly gravitating towards), I'd bet good money that the legitimate qualms of EU citizens will once again go ignored.

The common market grew with a series of treaties ratified by EU members which expanded the scope of the EU in a clearly defined way. In some cases it was put to referenda or else the governments of each country agreed to it, but regardless, describing the process as unchecked and undemocratic is completely false. Many major positions in every bureaucracy are unelected and low turnout doesn't mean the EU is democratically illegitimate. Legitimate qualms of some citizens everywhere go ignored and that isn't a compelling argument against a federal Europe. I'd turn this question around: under what circumstances do you consider countries integrating and/or unifying to be legitimate? After all, if what the EU doesn't meet your standard, then nothing will, and expecting the unanimous consent of every single person in the EU for integration--which seems to be your standard--goes against democratic norms and the very notion of the clasically liberal social contract which ostensibly is the basis for your ideology.

The EU became unpopular precisely because it tried to govern like it was a nation instead of a trade pact. All the rules and regulations it was implementing over the last 10 years and then expecting nations to follow those even when they violate their own rules and laws showed the utter hubris and failure of the EU.

Also, the EU is not some great institution which promoted free-market economics at all, it is far more socialist than the UK and the UK being out means it can implement far more neo-liberal reforms and make it self like the US than it could have under the EU.

But social systems like the NHS still enjoy popular support within the UK, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

The notion that the goal in certain Inelastic Markets should be profit is by definition extortion.

[DaWN]

Ignoring everything else, he's showing rather staggering ignorance regarding the British electorate. The number of people who voted Leave so we could be more neoliberal is probably in the single digits.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, I know this topic generates very strong feelings (though especially for those who are actually being affected by the events) and in result the discussion can get pretty heated, but can we tone it down a little?

[CumbrianLefty]

Ignoring everything else, he's showing rather staggering ignorance regarding the British electorate. The number of people who voted Leave so we could be more neoliberal is probably in the single digits.

Though quite a few of that tiny minority are prominent in politics and the media.

[Silent Hunter]

Terrorist attack in Streatham, London

[vileplume]

It's time to start the rejoin campaign today.

At what point and under what circumstances is the British body politic allowed to start focusing on other issues?

When my side unequivocally wins.

So, never.

He has a point though. Brexit is an issue is not going to magically disappear, nor are the people who have become attached to either side going to detach that now that Brexit itself has happened. Remainers are angry, betrayed and no longer in the mood to compromise with the bigoted masses, while Leavers are triumphant, empowered and equally no longer in the mood to compromise with the metropolitan elite. The ideas and issues surrounding Brexit are now here to stay and going back to the old ways. Now I don't agree with Rejoin as a philosophy or a policy but the ideas that were behind the Remain campaign over the last few years are not going to disappear. Leavers underestimate those forces at their peril and the left (including Labour) underestimate its importance to the opposition to their government at their peril.

And herein lies the biggest misconception of the whole Brexit debate. Attitudes to the EU in the general public is not split into two camps (Remain and Leave) but they instead sit on a sliding scale with far more people in the middle than you would ever think from listening to the media or reading Twitter. The amount of people in the country with a strong emotional attachment to the EU, feel passionately 'European' and who cried on exit day are actually quite a small number, similarly the number of people who hate the EU with an absolute passion and celebrated on exit day is also fairly small. Most people, regardless of how they eventually voted, are to a greater or lesser degree fairly meh about the whole thing and did little more than shrug as Britain's EU membership came to an end.

I personally think it's rather unlikely the UK will ever rejoin the EU as a full member because either the whole Brexit project goes okay in which case the 'soft' Remain vote will simply melt away and rejoining will be the cause of a few fringe groups who are largely ignored, or it is a disaster in which case I doubt the EU will want Britain back whatever they may be saying now and indeed the economy would fail all the entry requirements. On top of this Rejoin is a much harder sell than Remain anyway due to having to accept the Euro, Schengen etc. and will only get more tricky as the years advance and the EU moves towards federation. However if the EU does eventually develop a kind of two tier system with an inner, federal group and an outer group (or several) I could totally see Britain eventually becoming part of the outer grouping but I don't see the country ever being at the heart of Europe.

I do think free movement (or more likely free movement in all but name) will be back fairly soon though (if it ever really goes at all) due to economic demands and large labour shortages in certain sectors such as medicine, hospitality and agriculture.

[urutzizu]

Terrorist attack in Streatham, London

Another Convicted Terrorist released early apparently.

[afleitch]

Yes. I think there's a real and genuine problem here with early release but most importantly, the strategy of deradicalisaton for those in prison.

[brucejoel99]

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Oh my God you're also one of these f**king people. Good grief. One minute you're posting well-researched effortposts and the next you're back with the bottom-of-the-barrel dumbass cold takes.

Westphalian sovereignty isn't controversial outside of far-left groups and the boards of multinational corporations. But politics makes strange bedfellows, I suppose.

The principle of Westphalian sovereignty (the very concept of which originated within an international agreement) can & has been tempered by international agreements, which in & of themselves help to comprise international law! The fact that the UK was able to voluntarily withdraw from the EU treaties is, in & of itself, proof that your argument over 'sovereignty' is, was, & always will be complete & utter nonsense.

Oh please, the EU is not just another international institution. Does NAFTA have a president? Can its courts override the US constitution? Where is the army of ASEAN?

The EU stopped being a representative institution when it rammed the Lisbon treaty through. Macron and Merkel are discussing an EU army. I'm glad the UK got out while it still could. The rest of the member nations need to start feeling the slow boil of the pot they're in, or they'll be forever trapped as vassal states to Germany and France.

You keep forgetting that each member state is a sovereign country that voluntarily chose to voluntarily exercise their sovereignty so as to voluntarily cede certain competences to the EU in its treaties & which, at any time they so choose, can voluntarily stop doing so by once again voluntarily exercising their sovereignty so as to voluntarily withdraw.

Here's hoping you don't forget that it was all voluntary.

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Being a single zebra, even a strong one, is always less strong than being in the herd. The members of the EU each agreed to give up some of their sovereignty in exchange for a stronger position in the world. That was their sovereign choice: to defer to, & be bound by, the EU.

Not to mention, all countries in the EU still have the power to refuse to follow EU directives anyway, precisely because they are indeed still sovereign countries. Of course, such countries would potentially face consequences if they were to do so, as the EU is still a club with rules, after all, but for such countries, it's a simple matter of deciding whether the potential consequences are worth taking the action: that is also their sovereign choice.

So take your uninformed opinions about sovereignty & shove it.

The US has been a far better ally to the UK than the EU ever has so UK will benefit from a trade deal with the US.


Also Europe adopting US style nationalism(not the Trump style, the pre Trump style more like)>>> the EU easily

We've had this discussion before. I'm not having it again, except to say that if you think that Brexit will benefit the British economy, then good luck to you (or, rather, the British people). And even more luck to them if you think that there will ever be a trade deal with the US that benefits the UK in any greater way, shape, or size than the EU ever did. Trump will try to screw the UK over so much that the EU will have seemed like a blessing (which it really was).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Being a member of the EU is obviously voluntary, but there are other (often informal) mechanisms by which certain EU institutions have a habit of treating member states coercively, and that needs to change (either by weakening some of those institutions or by imparting more democratic legitimacy to the EU itself or both). Not that this made Brexit any less stupid of an idea.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Oh my God you're also one of these f**king people. Good grief. One minute you're posting well-researched effortposts and the next you're back with the bottom-of-the-barrel dumbass cold takes.

Westphalian sovereignty isn't controversial outside of far-left groups and the boards of multinational corporations. But politics makes strange bedfellows, I suppose.

The principle of Westphalian sovereignty (the very concept of which originated within an international agreement) can & has been tempered by international agreements, which in & of themselves help to comprise international law! The fact that the UK was able to voluntarily withdraw from the EU treaties is, in & of itself, proof that your argument over 'sovereignty' is, was, & always will be complete & utter nonsense.

Oh please, the EU is not just another international institution. Does NAFTA have a president? Can its courts override the US constitution? Where is the army of ASEAN?

The EU stopped being a representative institution when it rammed the Lisbon treaty through. Macron and Merkel are discussing an EU army. I'm glad the UK got out while it still could. The rest of the member nations need to start feeling the slow boil of the pot they're in, or they'll be forever trapped as vassal states to Germany and France.

You keep forgetting that each member state is a sovereign country that voluntarily chose to voluntarily exercise their sovereignty so as to voluntarily cede certain competences to the EU in its treaties & which, at any time they so choose, can voluntarily stop doing so by once again voluntarily exercising their sovereignty so as to voluntarily withdraw.

Here's hoping you don't forget that it was all voluntary.

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Being a single zebra, even a strong one, is always less strong than being in the herd. The members of the EU each agreed to give up some of their sovereignty in exchange for a stronger position in the world. That was their sovereign choice: to defer to, & be bound by, the EU.

Not to mention, all countries in the EU still have the power to refuse to follow EU directives anyway, precisely because they are indeed still sovereign countries. Of course, such countries would potentially face consequences if they were to do so, as the EU is still a club with rules, after all, but for such countries, it's a simple matter of deciding whether the potential consequences are worth taking the action: that is also their sovereign choice.

So take your uninformed opinions about sovereignty & shove it.

The US has been a far better ally to the UK than the EU ever has so UK will benefit from a trade deal with the US.


Also Europe adopting US style nationalism(not the Trump style, the pre Trump style more like)>>> the EU easily

We've had this discussion before. I'm not having it again, except to say that if you think that Brexit will benefit the British economy, then good luck to you (or, rather, the British people). And even more luck to them if you think that there will ever be a trade deal with the US that benefits the UK in any greater way, shape, or size than the EU ever did. Trump will try to screw the UK over so much that the EU will have seemed like a blessing (which it really was).

It's not so much that Trump will try to screw the UK as that there's no real reason for the US to give the UK a better trade deal than it had as part of the EU. Indeed, now that the UK is out of the EU, it's less attractive as a trade partner as it no longer serves as a gateway to Europe for US gods and services. Plus, there's no way a trade deal gets done before 2021 even with the best of intentions on all sides. Moreover, if Trump loses in November, trade talks will likely have to start over from scratch. The absolute best the UK could hope for this year would be a temporary deal that keeps the US UK trade relationship much the same as it was before Brexit until real negotiations can take place after our election.

[brucejoel99]

^ Trump hates the EU. Literally. He openly admits that to him, we are worse than China. He regards Europe in general, and Merkel and Macron in particular, as on par with, if not *the*  US' number one geopolitical enemy. He will give the UK a trade deal because everything that weakens Europe and poaches a country from the EUs sphere of Influence is a win for the Trump doctrine. Little economic logic behind it.
Both Johnson and Trump have an interest in weakening the EU position during UK-EU talks, and will use a prospective US-UK trade deal, and the now imminent Trade war with the EU (after the Ceasefire with China) to do so. You'll see how fast such a deal can be done, if the political will is really there (just look at the US-Israel FTA).

Which is why the Outcome of the US presidential election is going to be so massively important for the Balance of Power in the UK-EU trade talks (and at such a crucial time too, right before the deadline to reach a deal). If Trump is reelected, the UKs position will be much stronger, if  a democrat is, then the UK will find themselves very much out in the cold and hardly in a position not to bend to most of the EUs demands.

Keep in mind that the UK is negotiating as a tiny fish rather than as part of a large trading bloc. The reason that Trump hates the EU so much is because the EU is too big to be bullied by America in negotiations. Meanwhile, a lonesome UK, with no trade deals with its neighbors, will be easy pickings, because despite Trump & BoJo's bromance, the US doesn't have much incentive to make any exceptions in its game of playing hardball with trading partners when it's the more dominant player during negotiations. So that trade deal that BoJo is looking forward to will consist of nothing more than him selling off the UK to America for a couple of quid.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

^ Trump hates the EU. Literally. He openly admits that to him, we are worse than China. He regards Europe in general, and Merkel and Macron in particular, as on par with, if not *the*  US' number one geopolitical enemy. He will give the UK a trade deal because everything that weakens Europe and poaches a country from the EUs sphere of Influence is a win for the Trump doctrine. Little economic logic behind it.
Both Johnson and Trump have an interest in weakening the EU position during UK-EU talks, and will use a prospective US-UK trade deal, and the now imminent Trade war with the EU (after the Ceasefire with China) to do so. You'll see how fast such a deal can be done, if the political will is really there (just look at the US-Israel FTA).

Which is why the Outcome of the US presidential election is going to be so massively important for the Balance of Power in the UK-EU trade talks (and at such a crucial time too, right before the deadline to reach a deal). If Trump is reelected, the UKs position will be much stronger, if  a democrat is, then the UK will find themselves very much out in the cold and hardly in a position not to bend to most of the EUs demands.

I said election, not presidential election. Congress is unlikely to approve any trade deal this year. Even if one gets negotiated this year, it'll be punted until after the election by Congress. Maybe one that simply gives the UK what it had as part of the EU before Brexit could pass Congress this year, provided it's written to be a temporary stopgap to prevent trade disruption, but nothing new will get passed by Congress in an election year.

[Silent Hunter]

In terms of the EU trade deal, a lot of the public statements at the moment are probably rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Johnson would like to keep the ERG on side; they don't reveal their exact numbers, but there's probably enough of them to cause problems even with a majority of 85.

So he can't be seen to be caving to EU demands at this stage.

Nor can the EU be seen as giving the UK an easy ride lest it encourage other pro-leave groups to form.

Expect a lot of negotiation over what precisely a 'level playing field' means.

[Democratic Hawk]

A Corbyn government would have ultimately done a lot of economic damage to the UK; do you think that those with the wealth would have accepted the result?

The sooner Labour moves on from the Corbyn aberration the better.

[Democratic Hawk]

Farage's farewell speech. I hope the EU takes his words to heart. The Union is a disingenuous violation of national sovereignty and it needs to be destroyed.

Oh my God you're also one of these f**king people. Good grief. One minute you're posting well-researched effortposts and the next you're back with the bottom-of-the-barrel dumbass cold takes.

Westphalian sovereignty isn't controversial outside of far-left groups and the boards of multinational corporations. But politics makes strange bedfellows, I suppose.

The principle of Westphalian sovereignty (the very concept of which originated within an international agreement) can & has been tempered by international agreements, which in & of themselves help to comprise international law! The fact that the UK was able to voluntarily withdraw from the EU treaties is, in & of itself, proof that your argument over 'sovereignty' is, was, & always will be complete & utter nonsense.

Oh please, the EU is not just another international institution. Does NAFTA have a president? Can its courts override the US constitution? Where is the army of ASEAN?

The EU stopped being a representative institution when it rammed the Lisbon treaty through. Macron and Merkel are discussing an EU army. I'm glad the UK got out while it still could. The rest of the member nations need to start feeling the slow boil of the pot they're in, or they'll be forever trapped as vassal states to Germany and France.

We really do need a preemptive ban on Americans posting in the international boards. People who actually know their stuff like Brucejoel can subsequently be let back in, of course.

Does that include banning 51.4% of the British population as well?

Again, this isn't a violation of soveriegnty because sovereign states chose to join this instutituion, and can (foolishly) choose to leave. If a new treaty does away with Article 50 or just fully embraces a United States of europe, that doesn't violate national soverignity because sovereign nations choose to agree to it and legitimately cede their sovereignty to the European Union which itself becomes a sovereign state deriving its legitimacy from the will of the European people. By your logic, the USA has no sovereign democratic legitimacy because it was preceded by quasi-sovereign states governed by the Articles of Confederation.

No. You are wrong. The member nations did not hold votes on the Union as it exists today. They joined a common market that has since grown unchecked into a political union. EU elections see abysmal turnout and many of the major positions in the bureaucracy are unelected. To say that the people in the member nations "chose to join" this Union is frankly asinine and a complete misrepresentation of how the EU has expanded its power since its inception. And if the EU does become a United States of Europe (as it is slowly gravitating towards), I'd bet good money that the legitimate qualms of EU citizens will once again go ignored.

The common market grew with a series of treaties ratified by EU members which expanded the scope of the EU in a clearly defined way. In some cases it was put to referenda or else the governments of each country agreed to it, but regardless, describing the process as unchecked and undemocratic is completely false. Many major positions in every bureaucracy are unelected and low turnout doesn't mean the EU is democratically illegitimate. Legitimate qualms of some citizens everywhere go ignored and that isn't a compelling argument against a federal Europe. I'd turn this question around: under what circumstances do you consider countries integrating and/or unifying to be legitimate? After all, if what the EU doesn't meet your standard, then nothing will, and expecting the unanimous consent of every single person in the EU for integration--which seems to be your standard--goes against democratic norms and the very notion of the clasically liberal social contract which ostensibly is the basis for your ideology.

The EU became unpopular precisely because it tried to govern like it was a nation instead of a trade pact. All the rules and regulations it was implementing over the last 10 years and then expecting nations to follow those even when they violate their own rules and laws showed the utter hubris and failure of the EU.

Also, the EU is not some great institution which promoted free-market economics at all, it is far more socialist than the UK and the UK being out means it can implement far more neo-liberal reforms and make it self like the US than it could have under the EU.

Neo-liberal reforms. Has the 'Crash of 2008' taught us nothing.

[DaWN]

A Corbyn government would have ultimately done a lot of economic damage to the UK; do you think that those with the wealth would have accepted the result?

The sooner Labour moves on from the Corbyn aberration the better.

So it will never be better then

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Being a member of the EU is obviously voluntary, but there are other (often informal) mechanisms by which certain EU institutions have a habit of treating member states coercively, and that needs to change (either by weakening some of those institutions or by imparting more democratic legitimacy to the EU itself or both). Not that this made Brexit any less stupid of an idea.

There's truth to that. I've long preferred the EU having more democracy on top level, either by having an executive president elected in EU-wide popular election, or have the Parliament elect Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission (or the new office combining the two), without this being imposed by leaders of member countries.

I don't see coercive mechanisms as bad per se, though. I'm rather glad such mechanisms exists and can be used to prevent member states from undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law inside, as it's presently happening in my country. After all, when you join the EU, you are voluntarily subscribing to certain rules and common values, and it's only natural the EU institutions should have ways to ensure you don't break them.

[CumbrianLefty]

A Corbyn government would have ultimately done a lot of economic damage to the UK; do you think that those with the wealth would have accepted the result?

The sooner Labour moves on from the Corbyn aberration the better.

In historical terms, I suspect Blairism (or more specifically, the pro-war pro-privatisation late period version that people like you are so strangely fond of) will prove to be the real aberration.

And the "success" of Change UK shows how much appetite exists for it in the UK now.

[Oryxslayer]

Being a member of the EU is obviously voluntary, but there are other (often informal) mechanisms by which certain EU institutions have a habit of treating member states coercively, and that needs to change (either by weakening some of those institutions or by imparting more democratic legitimacy to the EU itself or both). Not that this made Brexit any less stupid of an idea.

There's truth to that. I've long preferred the EU having more democracy on top level, either by having an executive president elected in EU-wide popular election, or have the Parliament elect Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission (or the new office combining the two), without this being imposed by leaders of member countries.

I don't see coercive mechanisms as bad per se, though. I'm rather glad such mechanisms exists and can be used to prevent member states from undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law inside, as it's presently happening in my country. After all, when you join the EU, you are voluntarily subscribing to certain rules and common values, and it's only natural the EU institutions should have ways to ensure you don't break them.

I mean the Term "Democratic Deficit" was created specifically to describe the EU. It's well known that the majority of EU citizens want to improve  the accountability and accessibility of the EU and her institutions - it's a view that crosses the entire political spectrum. There are multiple sources of this problem: self-perpetuating and inflexible bureaucracy, entrenched interests, fears of what it may do to the nation-EU relationship, and quite a bit more. As the EU moves towards deeper integration, these problems will need to be addressed, since they will become more visible in peoples day-to-day lives.

[Democratic Hawk]

A Corbyn government would have ultimately done a lot of economic damage to the UK; do you think that those with the wealth would have accepted the result?

The sooner Labour moves on from the Corbyn aberration the better.

In historical terms, I suspect Blairism (or more specifically, the pro-war pro-privatisation late period version that people like you are so strangely fond of) will prove to be the real aberration.

And the "success" of Change UK shows how much appetite exists for it in the UK now.

There wasn't much of an appetite for Corbyn's Labour either. He was toxic. Pretty terrible when County Durham returns more Conservative MPs than Labour. Downright depressing in fact.